Republicans vs the Underverse Again in 2016

Since Ronald Reagan the United States has had three consecutive Presidents (not counting the transitional 41) representing development of an Underverse Party. The Underverse has few moral reservations beyond personal or class egoism. International political or economic competence aren't required for the job. Nephews, brothers, spouses and sons of are favored Presidential nominees. The poor may always be trimmed to bring the federal budget into balance, while contracts and weapons to kill foreigners can enhance the corporate and government class portfolio. Cheap illegal labor can be imported...etc.

It is remarkable how few politicians seem to have any sense of how to work for the general good of society rather than simply narrow partisan if not special interests. Working against party enemies seems the purpose of modern political activity. The concept of objective and independent reasoning about what is required to make the nation and population flourish within a health and security ecosphere is nearly non-existent.

Youth and the intellectually challenged may work for the pecuniary remunerative enhancement of social credit accounts of course. political leaderships should have some sort of larger vision though about matters such as value theory, the place of the environment in the world and enough political philosophy to get beyond cold war era theory.

Achieving the election of a race, gender or perversion preferred candidate is no substitute for political competence. While party interests may rise the ship of state may subside. The danger is that with the rise of an Underverse platform it may be exported and forced on other nations. The international relations incompetence of U.S. administrations of since the 20th century turned should never be misunderestimated.

Before the Spanish American war swelled Presidents and Congress the U.S.A. never had been in a foreign war of significance (not counting the counter-Mexican invasion). After that the clever British induced America to get involved in a continental European war twice and a cold war ensued. During the Bolshevik revolution the U.S.A. even sent 2000 soldiers to Russia to support the white army at war against the red army. U.S. Presidents are fundamentally idiots looking out more for British rather than national interests disregarded George Washington's farewell address comments entirely.

Consider U.S. history with Iran and Iraq. Iranian history is one with three or four parts of society holding power one at a time. The least powerful element was that of ordinary people. Military supporting royals or theocrats could rule yet the ordinary people aspired for democracy. When they finally achieved that in 1953 the U.S. led coup to get rid of the Prime Minister and restore a monarch gutted democratic aspiration. Then after decades of repressive aristocratic rule supported by the U.S. Government the left supported Khomeini to get rid of the monarch and SAVAK-the secret police. So once again the United States was involved on both sides of anti-democratic power struggle in Iran-is it any wonder that many  Iranians regard the U.S.A. as the great Satan-especially the Underverse party with homosexual marriage and abortion?

The British had invested in exploiting Iranian resources for quite a while and were peeved when the Iranians expropriated 'their' oil fields. Since then the United States has again been involved in a fairly unreasoned effort to follow up on a neo-colonial state's relationships that went bad. That occurred in Vietnam too with the French being that former colonial power.

With Iraq formerly being under British rule after the first world war it was inevitable I suppose that after the cold war ended Iran and Iraq would be incited to have a bloody war. Eventually of course the United States got involve and spent trillions of dollars rebuilding Iraq rather stupidly-it was supposed t cost just 50 billion dollars. Iraq was not a Germany or japan willing to join the western fold after defeat. Instead the principal of Islam asserted itself and a decade of civil conflict in Iraq enhanced by the Obama administration stimulating Arab Spring conflicts leading to attack upon the Syrian and Libyan governments has brought protracted conflict and the proliferation of Middle East sourced terrorism.

The Middle East seems to be a dog fighting political ecosystem that in the absence of the big dog of direct American power fights against its own for scraps of power and privilege. One must be somewhat naive to think that Iraqis will soon well govern themselves civilly with democracy and that it won't require the big dog to kick any challengers.

Thus one could even wonder if the efficient policy might not be to let all the conflicting parties kill one another without material support from the U.S.A. and then napalm the winners. Christians can't follow such policies of course, yet such circumstances might never occur if American Presidents were good leaders environmentally, politically and comprehended modern things such as full employment, secure borders, career employment security and space colonization in a green way.

Plainly a moral restoration needs to occur in the U.S.A. However with the wedding of Republican corporatists to the Underverse possibly ahead if Justices Cagney, Ginsberg et al vote for homo marriage, it would be challenging to bring that about.